1 See Turner, , “Mexico's In-Bond Industry Continues Its Dynamic Growth,” 7 Bus. Am., 27 (Nov. 26, 1983). Also see, Valdez, A., Infra note 7 at p. 397. In 1965 the Mexican Government adopted the Border industrialization Plan. The Plan's purpose was to foster the economic development of Mexico, provide jobs along the U.S.-Mexican border, and promote foreign exchange of goods and currency. What emerged was the Maquiladora industry.Google Scholar

2 Infra, note 6, at p. 402. Abelardo Valdez is the first to begin articulating a vision of a Free Trade Zone between the United States and Mexico when he was a graduate student at the Harvard Law School in 1974.Google Scholar

3 H.R. 1006, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 133 Cong. Rec. H592 (daily ed. Feb. 4. 1987). The initial proposal for a U.S.-Mexico Free Trade and Co-production zone was developed and drafted by A. Valdez. “A Proposal for a U.S.-Mexico Free Trade and Co-production Zone”. Submitted to the U.S. International Trade Commission (Mar. 24, 1986).Google Scholar

4 Infra note 12.Google Scholar

5 See H.R. 1006, § 4(a), 100 Cong., 1st Sess., 133 Cong. Rec. H592 (Daily ed. Feb. 4, 1987).Google Scholar

6 See, H.R. 1006, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 133 Cong. Rec. H592 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1987). See generally, “Canada-U.S. Free Trade and Labor Relations”. 41 Lab. L.J. 454, (Aug. 1990).Google Scholar

7 Valdez, A., “Expanding the Concept of Co-production Beyond the Miquiladora: Toward a More Effective Partnership Between the U.S. and Mexico, and the Caribbean Basin Counties”, 22 Int'l law 393, 404 (1988).Google Scholar

8 Infra note 12, at 372.Google Scholar

9 Infra note 29, The Canada Free Trade Agreement.Google Scholar

10 Reifenberg, J.W. Jr., “Barriers to United States-Canada Trade: Problems and Solutions”, 80 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 326 (1986).Google Scholar

11 Supra note 7 at 404. The U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement proposal would place no geographic limitations. However, the cities which would have the greatest impact and advantage would be San Diego, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Antonio, Texas. Also affected would be Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Saltillo, and Chihuahua. In this region, the two countries maintain similar cultures, language, geography, and entrepreneurial spirit.Google Scholar

12 See also, Battram, S.P., “Barriers to U.S. Canada trade: Problems & Solutions”, 80 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc 326, 31 (1986).Google Scholar

13 Id. at 332.Google Scholar

14 Supra note 1, at 26. The Petroleum/hydrocarbons industry is the largest source of foreign exchange.Google Scholar

15 Id. Google Scholar

16 Infra note 17, at 70.Google Scholar

17 O'Reilly, , “Business makes a Run for the Border”, Fortune p. 70, (Aug. 18, 1986). See also, note 1, at 26. Also see Valdez, A., Supra note 7, at 398.Google Scholar

18 U.S. International Trade Commission, The Impact of Increased U.S. Mexico Trade on Southwest Border Development xiv (Nov 1986).Google Scholar

19 Id.Google Scholar

20 Supra note 7, at 398.Google Scholar

21 Supra note 1, at 391.Google Scholar

22 Parker, R.W., “United States-Canadian Trade: The U.s. Perspective”, 19 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L & Eco. 433, (1985).Google Scholar

23 Supra note 12, at 364.Google Scholar

24 Id., at 365.Google Scholar

25 Cf. at note 7. However, the Mexican Government generally permits much flexibility among maquiladora operations. But it does restrict the sale in Mexico of goods produced in a maquiladora plant. Currently, the maquiladora industry sells only five percent of its products in Mexico. See generally, Turner, note 1 at 26. Also see, Walton, C., “International Trade—U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement, Signed Jan. 2, (1988).Google Scholar

26 Supra note 7 at 401. “In 1983 the Mexican Government established a ceiling of domestic sales at twenty percent of the output from a co-production facility. Also see, Turner, Supra, note 1, at 29.Google Scholar

27 Infra note 32, at 574.Google Scholar

28 See ASG Industries v. United States 610 F.2d 770 (1979).Google Scholar

29 See also, United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, Signed Jan 2, 1988. arts. 902–04.Google Scholar

30 Supra note 1, at 365. Also see, Battram, , “Canada-U.S. Trade Negotiations: Continental Accord Or a Continent Apart” 80 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 326, 333, (1986).Google Scholar

31 See generally, Rose, W.B., “Barriers to U.S. Canada Trade: Problems & Solutions,” 80 Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 326, 334 (1986).Google Scholar

32 See also, Walton, C., “International Trade—U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement, Signed Jan. 2, 1988”, 29 Harv. Int'l L. J. 572, 577, (Spr. 1988).Google Scholar

33 Supra note 12, at 365.Google Scholar

34 Carlsen, A., “The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: A Bilateral Approach To The Reduction Of Trade Barriers.” 12 Suffolk Transnat'l L. J. 299, 313 (1987).Google Scholar

35 Parker, R.W., “Barriers to U.S.-Canadian Trade: Problems and Solutions—Canadian View”, 19 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L & Eco. 443, 445 (1985).Google Scholar

36 Id.Google Scholar

37 Id at 444.Google Scholar

38 Supra note 12, at 372.Google Scholar

39 Supra note 32, at 574.Google Scholar

40 Lecture by Jose Ramon Palacios Vargas former Supreme Court Justice of the United States of Mexico at the Universidad de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Foro de Derecho, “PERSPECTIVAS ACTUALES DE LAS CIENCIAS JURIDICAS.” (Nov. 6, 1990).Google Scholar

41 Supra note 12, at 365. See, also, Carlsen, , “The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: A Bilateral Approach To The Reduction of Trade Barriers,” 12 Suffolk Transnat'l L. J. 299, 315 (1987).Google Scholar

42 Fried, J., “Barriers to U.S.-Canada Trade: Problems & Solutions”, 80 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 326, 344 (1986).Google Scholar

43 Supra note 1, at 363.Google Scholar

44 Contra Stone, Canada-United States Economic and Trade Relations: Institutional Arrangements in the LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE, 3 (1987). There is a general agreement that the GATT dispute resolution mechanism is too cumbersome to deal with trade disputes in a timely manner.Google Scholar